The Clarendon

Status
Not open for further replies.
All these 200 and 300 footer are making me sick. The BRA doesn't reliaze we are running out of land here and pretty soon the city is going to stop growing. Cities like Atlanta,Chicago,and Phila put boston to shame in terms of growth.
 
Philly's population is still declining, Chicago grew a little in the 1990s and is now estimated to be stable at best. Atlanta doesn't count, because it's growth is mostly sprawl and it still annexes land.
 
Atlanta is the ugliest city in the country. Chicago should be the world's model city. Philly is blech. Omaha, NE is growing faster than Boston is. I swear, when you have 4 of the world's richest people living in one city, it's bound to do something right.
 
Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia. Is this serious?
Atlanta? Atlanta??!! Atlanta is not putting anyone to shame. It's a sprawling suburb without a heart or a soul. Using it as a standard for urban comparisons? Come on. Wake up. It is the standard for what not to do.
Phildelphia? Phildelphia is struggling to retain an identity, create an identity, and may be failing in that struggle. They've decided tall buildings is not the way. High tech and liveable neighborhoods are more productive.
Chicago? Ah! Chicago -- one the of the great cities of this country. Ask any Chicago native and he'll likely say the same about Boston. And the parts they like best are not tall, they are human scale.
We do not need to go tall to remain special.
 
Living in St. Louis I get compliments about Boston all the time..."oh, it's such a refined city," "Very elegant," "do they really talk like they do in the departed?" and such. see, weve got a beautiful city, and we take for granted that we rock a lot of other cities asses. but, fortunately or unfortunately, in sports and in architecture, we try to compare ourselves with NYC, so we continually fall short of our expecations. even though Boston is better than nyc in so many ways.
 
Being from Boston has always served me extremely well whenever travelling.......and I think Phoenix is America's ugliest city.

Still, there's no good reason why we can't have it all: livable neighborhoods AND tall buildings.
 
ShawnA said:
All these 200 and 300 footer are making me sick. The BRA doesn't reliaze we are running out of land here and pretty soon the city is going to stop growing. Cities like Atlanta,Chicago,and Phila put boston to shame in terms of growth.
Click to expand...

Um, this is Boston, not London, Hong Kong, or NYC. Boston is tiny as hell and the fact that we can even have 300ft towers is impressive enough. Boston proper doesn't even have 1million ppl; half that barely. We don't have 1,000' towers because the market doesn't need them.
 
I don't won't to get that why 'Boston is a not great city stuff', but if people want that I can put together a long long list as to why it is. I swear the people on this forum who complain the most have never been anywhere else. The posting above hit the nail on the head -
Still, there's no good reason why we can't have it all: livable neighborhoods AND tall buildings.
Click to expand...
That's why we should save Shreve Crump and Lowe and add a new building, save what gives Boston it's feel and increase the vitality of the city with new residents, workers and visitors. Other than our universities we have little competitive edge to compete with other cities. The more we become generic the less competitive we become.


This is from yesterdays New York Times:
A Science Lover?s Kind of Town
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/travel/escapes/14american.html?scp=1&sq=boston&st=cse
 
kennedy said:
Omaha, NE is growing faster than Boston is. I swear, when you have 4 of the world's richest people living in one city, it's bound to do something right.
Click to expand...

I was born and raised in Omaha. Left town when I was 23 years old. Downtown Omaha is comparable in vibe and feel to mid sized cities such as Worcester, Springfield and Hartford. Providence is in different league and has a much nicer and more vibrant downtown. Omaha has had more demolitions in the core business district and is more pocketed by open air lots than all the above towns. The overall economy is probably better in Omaha than the above mentioned towns, but almost all of the growth is manifested in very visable residential and commercial suburban sprawl. Think Houston and Phoenix but on a much smaller scale. Housing is extremely cheap and relative to Boston, homes and entire neighborhoods are viewed as continually sliding downhill. New construction is the rule. The first wave of upwardly mobile with generous amounts of disposable income move in large new subdivisions often comprised of 500 or so similar type homes. It then becomes chock full of young families. After 20 or so years, the kids are gone, the original homeowners leave, demographics shift. The homes usually not very well constructed, begin to age badly. The neighborhood is viewed as second or third tier and the upwardly mobile are now buying in a new subdivision much further out. Omaha has continuously and aggressively annexed the newly constructed sprawl and by this virtue posts population gains. However, the population density of older parts of Omaha is on the decline. In many old neighborhoods (pre WWII), vacant homes are continually demolished by the city. Many older low income areas are reverting back to a form of post apocalyptic type prairie. Omaha has put a tremendous amount of public resources into improving downtown with mixed results. For example, when a substantial new office tower was recently constructed, many less desirable office towers just emptied out almost completely. Downtown Omaha and its older neighborhood have been either treading water or sliding backwards over the last few decades.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
We don't have 1,000' towers because the market doesn't need them.
Click to expand...

True for so many reasons. Let's not compare ourselves to others (most, less worthy), let's decide what is appropriate for our town.

Belkin's 1000 feet was not it IMHO. I'm not sure height like that would ever be appropriate.
 
IMO height is great, however what I think Boston needs more than height is "WOW" architecture. I am so tired of the same ol' same ol', e.g., brick, brick and more brick. This city really needs some iconic architecture, something that would stop you dead in your tracks just to marvel at. I'm not sure I'll ever see this in my lifetime, certainly not in this economy anyway. But, we live with hope.
 
photo taken today by Fousty on flickr:



3036805626_79c4f00a80_b.jpg
 
Ooh, poppy colors in that shot. Makes Boston almost look like Sim City. I want to click and rotate.

While we're in the neighborhood, who else wishes Columbus Center had been proposed for the site of the garage next to Back Bay station (it would have replaced a monstrosity and may have had slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell). Also: that one-story supermarket on Huntington has always grated me. Doubtless a concession to PruPAC, who got a fancy roof plaza (and preserved views) out of it.
 
^Columbus Center in its proposed location does a lot of good for the city, but, yes, the parking garage IS a monstrosity, and Back Bay Station is a pathetic, cringing, dingy excuse for a transportation hub.
 
^ Kallmann and McKinnell just don't get no respect around here.
 
I actually like Back Bay station but I also think that it could really use a facelift.
 
czsz said:
Ooh, poppy colors in that shot. Makes Boston almost look like Sim City. I want to click and rotate.
Click to expand...

I tried to do the same thing...

"Kallmann and McKinnell just don't get no respect around here."

If someone would consider taking care of their rubbage, maybe I'd give them a little love.
 
Having watched development in Boston since the 1960's I am amazed how how much is happening now. I don't think there ever was so much under construction or in planing at one time. Once the development in this area, including the turnpike parcels west of the Pru are finished that leaves very little space left to be developed. I would expect that the Back Bay Station might be the next to be developed. There was brief talk of this just as Columbus Sq was starting to be planned. After that the Hancock Garage is probably the only developable parcel left in that part of the Back Bay, not counting any future additions to the Pru.

There had been talk of a second level of shopping at the Pru but the official word was that is was not structurally feasible. I would expect that in the future they will find a way to do this and add more office space too.
 
In all fairness, I think the biggest problem with Back Bay Station is its lighting. It is so bad, I have never entered this space without feeling instantly unclean. It taints everything it is purported to illuminate.
 
What about the fact that the commuter rail waiting room feels almost like an afterthought. South Station feels like an intercity terminal...Back Bay feels like, well, what it is: a glorified Orange Line stop with commuter trains that happen to run through it.

Imagine if the vaulting opened onto the commuter rail tracks rather than the subway; it might give the whole thing a more grandiose appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top